Shared Instrumentation Grant Workshop

1. Shared Instrumentation Grant Workshop • Northwestern University • Office for Research

2. Speakers: Phil Hockberger, Director of Core Facilities, OR Teng-Leong Chew, Director of Imaging Resources, OR Bill Hendrickson, Director of Research Resources, UIC

3. NIH Instrument Grant Proposals • NU policies and procedures • Voucher Program • Institutional Letters of Support • Internal proposal process • NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution

4. NIH Instrument Grant Proposals • NU policies and procedures • Voucher Program • Institutional Letter of Support • Internal proposal process • NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution

5. NU policies and procedures • Priority given to instruments placed in NU core facilities • Proposals from groups of PIs is possible but must be clearly justified through OR • All proposals must be approved by OR

6. NIH Instrument Grant Proposals • NU policies and procedures • Voucher Program • Institutional Letters of Support • Internal proposal process • NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution

7. Voucher Program • Started in Jan. 2010 • Sponsored by OR • Proposal must be funded by NIH • Provides $10K to core facility for PI use of that instrument - not Co-I(s)

8. NIH Instrument Grant Proposals • NU policies and procedures • Voucher Program • Institutional Letters of Support • Internal proposal process • NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution

9. Institutional Letter of Support • Required of all proposals (section F) • Describes infrastructure available or planned for the instrument (space, technical support) • No cost sharing required but can solicit support from departments, schools and institutes (e.g. for service contracts or space renovation) • Letter template available on OR website

10. NIH Instrument Grant Proposals • NU policies and procedures • Voucher Program • Institutional Letters of Support • Internal proposal process • NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution

11. Internal Proposal Process • Internal intent notification of ORD – Jan. 6 (ad hoc thereafter; duplication reconciled by OR) • Internal confirmation – Jan. 25 (ad hoc thereafter; no duplication thereafter) • NIH deadline – March 21

12. NIH Instrument Grant Proposals • NU policies and procedures • Voucher Program • Institutional Letters of Support • Internal proposal process • NIH changes due to NCRR dissolution

13. NIH Changes due to NCRR Dissolution • All instrumentation grant programs (SIG, HEI) will be handled through NIH Office of the Director • James Anderson will manage programs – he is the former director of core facilities at UNC • He reports to Larry Tamack, DeputyDirector of NIH – he is former director of proteomics at Univ. of Rochester

14. Goal: • Get a final IMPACT SCORE of less than 20 No percentile given for SIGs

15. SIG score card for the reviewers

16. The 5 categories in your grant that determine the final Impact Score • Justification of Needs • Technical Expertise • Research Projects • Administration • Institutional Commitment

17. The 5 categories in your grant that determine the final Impact Score • Justification of Needs • Technical Expertise • Research Projects • Administration • Institutional Commitment

18. Justification of Needs • What is the requested instrument? • Why is this instrument needed? • Any similar equipment available at the institution? • How many NIH-funded grants (or PIs) will be affected?

19. Justification of Needs: Tips • Describe the capability of the instrument - highlights its importance; e.g.: replacing a heavily used, aging instrument enhanced capabilities lack of instrumentation at the institution Do not say “we need this because others have it” • Do not shy away from addressing the availability of similar instruments at the institution. Do not underestimate the reviewers’ ability to investigate • Justify the configuration of the instruments Why this particular model? Do you need every module in the proposed instrument? • Use a table to highlight which PIs will use which functionality of the system

20. The 5 categories in your grant that determine the final Impact Score • Justification of Needs • Technical Expertise • Research Projects • Administration • Institutional Commitment

21. Technical Expertise • Will the instrument be properly operated? • Will the appropriate level of technical support and training be provided to the users?

22. Technical Expertise: Tips • The biggest error: Choosing the wrong instrument • Second biggest error: Complaining that previously bought instrument does not deliver • Third biggest mistake: Sending to all the major users a template to discuss their experiments (and with wrong information) • Highlight the technical expertise of the team: from core personnel to major users • Do you need to hire a new technical person?

23. The 5 categories in your grant that determine the final Impact Score • Justification of Needs • Technical Expertise • Research Projects • Administration • Institutional Commitment

24. Research Projects • The mission of SIGs: to fund instruments that will enhance the currently NIH funded project. • Therefore: must show how current projects will be enhanced • Must sync your message in “Research Projects” with that in “Justification of Needs” • Watch out for research projects that may cause you points in “Technical Expertise”

25. Research Projects: Tips • Start early. You are relying on a lot of very busy people • Provide preliminary data. Do whatever it takes! If the manufacturer cannot demo the instrument on site, go to their site or ship your samples • List all NIH grant numbers for each PI that will benefit from the instrument. Discuss the impact by referring to the grant specific aims, not in vague general terms • Cautionary note: do not say the grant is hampered without the instrument (unless you are requesting to replace old instrument). The PIs should not have been funded if they cannot perform their experiment because of a non-existent instrument • Be prepared to do significant editing

26. The 5 categories in your grant that determine the final Impact Score • Justification of Needs • Technical Expertise • Research Projects • Administration • Institutional Commitment

27. Administration • Will the scope be properly managed? • Who will do the training? • Will the team continue to operate the scope after the initial years while under warranty? • Is there an outreach program to increase usage? • Is there a committee to manage user conflict? • Is safety issues addressed?

28. Administration: Tips • Calculate capacity usage. Make sure major users will use at least 75% of the capacity • Calculate anticipated hourly rate – is this close to the national average? • Discuss how instrument time will be divided between major/other users • Present a projected budget, showing that you will be able to handle the operation of the instrument financially • Have a steering committee • Discuss your reservation/billing mechanisms • Discuss how you handle safety issues (include letters)

29. The 5 categories in your grant that determine the final Impact Score • Justification of Needs • Technical Expertise • Research Projects • Administration • Institutional Commitment

30. Institutional Commitment • Is the institution committed to ensure the successful operation of the instrument? • Is there a historical trend of institutional support to the team/unit? • Has the institution committed space/renovation cost if needed? • Will the institution step in to support the service contract if the recharge revenues falls short of expectation?

31. Institutional Commitment: Tips • List historical support from the institution (every source) to your unit (extremely important!) • List institutional support specific to this particular grant - extra personnel - space/renovation • Highlight the types of support the institution has given you - Instrumentation upgrade/purchase? - Operational cost support? - Planned or occasional support? • Make sure you get institutional support letter. Work with the NU internal system – start early. This is a bottom-up approach Department > School/Center > University